Agree or not, a fairer argument would have been the story wasn't that good because the narrative between the sequence of events was disjointed. But the author doesn't go that way, he attacks that the protagonist doesn't have enough character development, and then laughably compares DE:HR to Halo.

The examples the author used were all action games, not RPGs. Can you make a single choice as the character playing most of his examples? Even ME2s choices had limited impact on the story. Halo doesn't even have a plot, that has a setting. Portal, meh, ok, it has a plot (sorta). But DE:HR had a story. You're making up part of the story as you go. You make choices and mistakes. NPCs have individual motives and opinions which you may or may not learn about and you can form relationships with those NPCs based on your actions.

Jensen does evolve over the course of the game, that's the role-playing portion of the game. Jensen has a history, you're introduced to the character and then you make choices based on what you want him to become. You choose how the character develops. Is he a pacifist, a psycho path? Is he empathetic or aggressive in conversation? Do you help people or extort them for money? No, his voice doesn't change much but blame that on poor voice acting if you want to, not a lack of character development.

Part of the problem here might be how much of the story you understand depends on how you play the game. Talking to people and reading their emails flushes out the story. Smash through the game in 10 hours doing only the required main quests and I'm sure your impression of the story would be pretty piss poor but that's like only reading every 3rd chapter of a book and complaining you couldn't follow what was going on.

DE:HR wasn't the greatest story ever but it was (IMO) the best of 2011 and probably the best since TW1. He claims he's not trying to poop in our cheerios but something sure doesn't smell right from where I'm sitting.